Thursday, April 30, 2015

Newly-leaked military documents reveal what the United States government is no longer denying: that elite branches of
the military are currently preparing for “training exercises”
throughout the U.S. southwest which simulate martial law scenarios.
The document reveals the training exercises are being conducted under the name “Operation Jade Helm.”

The exercises are scheduled to begin this July and continue for eight weeks. The operation will include the participation of 1,200 troops from the the Green Berets, Navy SEALS and Special Operations from the Air Force and Marines.
While the military acknowledges the leaked information is legitimate,
they have termed the exercises “Realistic Military Training” and
confirm that these exercises will be carried out
in towns in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas as
well as Utah. For whatever reason, the focus seems to be on the U.S.
southwest in particular.
In the case of Texas, the military is being the most forthright about
the exercises – admitting they are in the works and asking Texans
living in close proximity to the operation to report anything which the
military has characterized as “suspicious activity” during the
exercises.
The leaked US military training document, was released by The Houston Chronicle. It perhaps overestimates the US military belief
that Texans have been “historically supportive” of military exercises
like these, as they believe them to be for the purposes of “fight[ing]
the enemies of the United States.”
Army Special Operation Command spokesman Mark Lastoria acknowledged
that the exercises are all about “covert warfare tactics and martial
law.”

They are to develop “emerging concepts in special operations warfare,” he continued.
He told a US Army publication known as Stripes that the “notion” that
this is training for martial law in the United States “was proposed by a
few individuals who are unfamiliar with how and why USASOC conducts
training exercises.”
He adds that Americans shouldn’t be worried, because they are really
just training to impose martial law on cities around the world “at a
moment’s notice.”

“This exercise is routine training to maintain a high level of
readiness for Army Special Operations Forces because they must be ready to support potential missions anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice.”
Skeptics, however, have asked why states like Texas and Utah, as well as a section of southern California?
Whatever the reason for the U.S. military conducting what they admit
are “martial law” exercises in what they also call “realistic urban
sites,” what we know for certain is that the Special Forces will be on
the ground in cities and towns
across the country. Whether this is for the purposes of training to
oppress civilians abroad or in the U.S., it has a lot of people
concerned and asking questions.
(Article by Jackson Mariana and Zeidy David; image via Wall321; map via US Army Special Operations Command)

ADVERTISEMENT

Twitter Feed

RSIS
Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate,
policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical issues and
contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do
not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced
electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS and due
recognition to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email: RSISPublications@ntu.edu.sgfor feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentary, Yang Razali Kassim.

No. 104/2015 dated 30 April 2015

South China Sea:Turning Reefs into Artificial Islands?

By Youna Lyons and Wong Hiu Fung

Synopsis

Large-scale
reclamation work in the South China Sea using living coral reefs as
building material is causing severe environmental damage. It is also
against international law.

Commentary

CHINA’S
ONGOING reclamation activities in the South China Sea are a cause for
environmental concern, given their potential to destroy the
little-explored pristine coral reefs of the Spratlys. This development
comes as a surprise coming at a time of loss of biological diversity on
land and in the sea, and an acute concern for the degradation of the
natural environment.

These marine features lie in contested
waters. High resolution commercial satellite imagery shows mechanical
dredgers and their circular trails operating on reefs in the Spratlys
where substantial land reclamation work is being or has been undertaken
by China. This is particularly visible on Fiery Cross Reef, Hughes Reef,
Mischief Reef, Subi Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Gaven Reef and Johnson South
Reef. Even unoccupied shallow features have been dredged to provide
building material for nearby reclamations. Coral reefs that have been
left untouched for centuries by virtue of their isolation are now gone.

Using living coral reefs as building materialDredgers,
such as cutter suction dredgers, are used to break up and remove hard
substrates like coral reefs together with other attached organisms
(molluscs, seagrass, etc) before compacting them onto the area being
reclaimed. In addition to removing all coral reefs, these dredgers
create sediment plumes that further threaten living coral fragments
still alive and other photosynthetic organisms that need sunlight to
live.

The environmental impact due to past construction of
military installations and destructive fishing methods on reefs has
already been reported since the late 1980s. But such activities were of a
smaller magnitude and did not involve the destruction of entire reef
systems –as is being done now in the disputed waters of the South China
Sea.

The geographic formations, generally known as the Spratlys
Islands, are in fact isolated seamounts covered with coral reefs. These
underwater mountains on the seabed are separated by deep and large
canyons up to 50 km wide and several thousand metres high. Their summits
are or were covered with living corals (and often with seagrass in
shallowest areas). But only a dozen out of more than one hundred of them
exhibit small cays or islands above water at all tides - altogether
less than one square kilometre.

Their dramatic rise from the
seabed causes an upward current, bringing up nutrient-rich deep water
that feeds life developing in the top layers of the sea. Seamounts are
remarkably productive as they create exceptional conditions for a
variety of life to develop; both in the light of the top layers of the
sea and below. However, their isolation also makes them vulnerable and
slow to recover from large-scale disturbances.

Marine research
studies carried out in the 1980’s by the Joint Oceanographic Marine
Survey of the Philippines and Vietnam and more recently by independent
scientists show the rich biodiversity in the shallowest parts of these
seamounts - their richness in coral reefs, fishes, seabirds, migratory
species and other coral reef associated species.

Potential impact on littoral States

Coral
ecologists specialising in the Spratlys hypothesised in the 1990’s that
the very high diversity of species in the Spratlys would provide
critical larval sources for overharvested and stressed coastlines
bordering the South China Sea and more generally for biodiversity
reservoirs. This theory is based on a combination of factors. These
include on-site sampling; the proximity of the Coral Triangle; and
enhanced transport and dispersal of drifting larvae and juvenile fishes
throughout the South China Sea by the ocean circulation pattern that
reverses under monsoonal influence.

Recent research suggests that
the biodiversity of the South China Sea may be comparable to or even
richer than that of the Coral Triangle – the tropical marine waters,
roughly triangular in shape, of Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea,
Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. It is therefore greater than the
biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Coastal and oceanic
fisheries exploited by the littoral States of the South China Sea are
also expected to benefit from these reefs.

These spawning and
nursery grounds for reef fish can also be feeding grounds that support
large population of oceanic and migratory fish such as several tuna
species, including yellowfin and skipjack tunas. The disappearance of
the reefs would offset most if not all of these benefits.

Coral reefs and international law

Under
international law, it is the obligation of ‘building States’ to protect
and employ sustainable management practices with respect to their
construction activities in the Spratly seamounts. It is also their
obligation to consult with other affected States. International law
provides for clear obligations with respect to the protection and
sustainable management of the Spratly seamounts, and the prevention and
management of transboundary impacts from human activities:

Firstly,
the Spratly seamounts and their associated species qualify for
protection under a large number of hard and soft law international
instruments because they meet the criteria for sensitive environments in
need of protection.

Secondly, any State engaging in
construction work that carries a risk of severe or irreversible damage
to the local marine environment and risk transboundary damage to coral
reefs and fisheries of States bordering the South China Sea must consult
the affected States. They must also apply the precautionary approach
and exercise due diligence in the conduct of their activities including
the duty of vigilance and prevention. This would include the adoption of
measures such as conducting a transparent environmental impact
assessment.

Furthermore, the lack of full scientific certainty
concerning the scope of potential negative impacts must not be used as a
reason to defer these obligations. The existence of plausible
indications of potential transboundary risks is sufficient to trigger
the application of these positive obligations for any State undertaking
land reclamations in the Spratlys.

States carrying out
construction activities on coral reefs and seamounts in the Spratlys
must avoid damaging the marine environment due to the far reaching risks
to the States bordering the South China Sea. To ignore such risks could
create broader complications for regional cooperation and political
stability amongst the States of Southeast Asia and the southwestern
Pacific.

Youna
Lyons is a Senior Research Fellow and Wong Hiu Fung, Research
Assistant, in the Ocean and Policy Programme of the Centre for
International Law (CIL), National University of Singapore (NUS). They
contributed this specially to RSIS Commentary.Click HERE to read this commentary online.

US Secretary of Defense to participate in the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue

30 April: The US Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, has confirmed his participation in the upcoming 2015 Asia Security
Summit: the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue, taking place in Singapore from 29–31 May.

Now in its 14th year, the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue is the key forum for the discussion and analysis of defence and security
concerns, in the region and beyond.

The Dialogue will bring together defence ministers, military chiefs, high-ranking defence officials, leading defence and
security experts, and representatives of the private sector from the Asia-Pacific, North America, Europe and other regions.

Registration for the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue is now open. For more information, visit the summit’s
website or contact the Shangri-La Dialogue Press Team at sldpress@iiss.org.
Media registration will close on 1 May 2015.

Information for Editors:

A registered charity headquartered in London, the IISS also has offices in
Washington DC,
Singapore and
Manama,
Bahrain. The IISS is a non-partisan organisation, independent of
government and other bodies. Its mission is to promote the adoption of
sound policies to further
global peace and security and maintain civilised international
relations.

(CNSNews.com)
– The U.S. Senate on Tuesday evening voted down the first of a raft of
amendments to legislation providing for congressional review of a
negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran, with a majority of senators
rejecting a bid to give a deal international treaty status.

If
the agreement was deemed a treaty, ratification would require the
support of 67 of the 100 senators – a threshold the Obama administration
would struggle to achieve, judging from the deep misgivings expressed
on both sides of the aisle over the emerging nuclear deal. (SOL: Because of pressure from BIBI threats)

Instead,
under compromise legislation crafted by Senate Foreign Relations
Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), lawmakers wanting to reject an
Iran deal would need to pass a resolution of disapproval in both
chambers. A presidential veto would almost certainly follow, requiring
just 34 senators to be upheld.

Johnson argued on the Senate floor that this would in effect give 34 senators the ability to approve a “bad deal.”

He
said he believed that the Iran nuclear agreement “is so important to
the security of this nation and world peace, that it rises to the level
of a treaty.” (SOL: Yes, sounds like BIBI wrote the script)

His
amendment would require the president to come to the Senate, in line
with the Constitution, for its advice and consent – “so that 67 senators
would have to vote affirmatively that this is a good deal.”

“Basically the American public would be involved in the decision through their elected representatives,” Johnson said.

“The
American public is not being given the opportunity right now. What is
happening right now under this Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is we
have turned advice and consent on his head. We have lowered the
threshold to what advice and consent means as relates to this Iran
deal.”

Republicans
opposing Johnson’s amendment included Corker, who said it would bring
an inevitable presidential veto, thus depriving Congress the ability to
weigh in on the nuclear agreement at all.

“Let
us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” he said. “Let’s
ensure that we have the ability to see the details of this deal.”

Cruz and Rubio have amendments of their own to offer as the Senate continues to consider the Corker bill this week.

Rubio
wants the legislation to include a provision requiring Iranian leaders
publicly to recognize Israel’s right to exist, while Cruz’ proposal
would require Congress to vote to approve any nuclear deal, rather than
to vote to disapprove it, thus placing the burden on the agreement’s
backers rather than on its detractors. Neither looks likely to succeed.

Corker’s
bill in current form requires the president to submit the text of a
final nuclear agreement to Congress within five days of its conclusion.

Congress
would then have 30 days to review the deal, and will be able to vote on
“a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress does favor
the agreement” or vote on “a joint resolution stating in substance that
the Congress does not favor the agreement.” It could also take no
action, allowing the deal to go ahead.

Corker
announced Tuesday that he was submitting an amendment too, requiring
not just the English-language text of the agreement to be submitted to
Congress but a Farsi-language one as well.

He said this was designed to clear up any dispute between the U.S. and Iran over exactly what had been agreed upon.

After
a “framework” deal was announced on April 2, laying out the parameters
for a final agreement to be concluded by the end of June,major differences emerged between
the two sides’ depictions of its contents, centered on the timing of
the lifting of sanctions, and the question of access to military sites
for foreign inspectors.

“We
all saw the controversy surrounding the discrepancies between the
American fact sheet and the Iranian fact sheet,” Corker said in
explanation of his amendment. “This agreement is too important to rely
on secondhand interpretations of the text.”

Asia-Pacific

Forty years after fall of Saigon, Vietnam now directs anger at China

Vietnamese
national flags — with a gold star on a red field — fly everywhere in
the run-up to today’s big parade marking the fall of Saigon, now called
Ho Chi Minh City, on April 30, 1975. However, this country is no longer
obsessed with the “American war” or the regime in Saigon that Washington
worked very hard to support until the end of the war. Admiral Tran
Thanh Minh, deputy chief of Vietnam’s small navy, says the stronger
memory today is of Vietnam’s border war with China in 1979 and the
current threat posed by China’s claim to control a large portion of the
South China Sea.

For thousands of years, the Vietnamese people have been fighting invasions from China. We defeated China with endless spirit.
Admiral Tran Thanh Minh, deputy chief of Vietnam’s navy

Vietnam
now looks to the U.S. as a partner and potential source from which to
buy weapons to modernize the country’s military, says the admiral. The
two countries have also hosted high-level visits, and Vietnam has
welcomed military cooperation and visiting U.S. naval ships. China
continues to spar with Hanoi and other neighbors over disputed islands
in the South China Sea in what is viewed as a growing maritime threat in
the region.

Progress M-27M will fall to Earth in a matter of days, experts have said

The ISS-bound spacecraft suffered a glitch after launching yesterday April 28, 2015.

It is now spinning out of control with ‘nowhere to go’ except down

The
Progress is carrying about 2.5 tons of cargo, including fuel,
equipment, oxygen and food, to the space station, which currently has a
six-person crew from Russia, the United States and Italy

ESA director Thomas Reiter:

The
spacecraft is 160 miles high and travelling at more than 16,000mph.
That altitude is sufficiently below the space station to pose the crew
no problems, but some satellites might need to take evasive manoeuvres.

What’s Next for US-Philippine Military Ties?

As I reported previously,
the United States and the Philippines are now carrying out this year’s
iteration of the Balikatan exercises, which have been expanded
significantly. But with those exercises soon coming to a close on April
30, there have been some discussions about what we might expect from
U.S.-Philippine military relations in the near future.
One evolving issue is what the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA) signed last year between the two countries might mean
specifically in terms of the U.S. access to Philippine bases. In
mid-April, Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario had already said
that the Philippines welcomed the U.S. plan to deploy air and naval
assets to the country as part of the next phase of Washington’s
rebalance to the region. While del Rosario said he had not discussed
specifics with his U.S. counterparts, he noted that handling such
equipment “will require U.S. presence.” Department of National Defense
(DND) spokesman Peter Galvez also added
that Manila had planned and looked at where some of these new
capabilities “may be appropriately deployed,” including Subic and Clark
which the United States had access to up till 1991.
On April 24, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) Gregorio Catapang offered a bit more clarity on this question when
he disclosed to ABS-CBN News
that US troops would have access to at least eight Philippine military
bases under EDCA. These are: Fort Magsaysay in Neuva Ecija; Crow Valley
in Tarlac; Basa Air Base in Pampanga; Naval Station San Miguel in
Zambales; Antonio Bautista Air Base in Palawan; Benito Ebuen Air Base in
Cebu; and Naval Base Rafael Ramos in Cebu. Two of those bases face the
South China Sea.
The list of bases is not new – it was agreed upon during a meeting
between Catapang and Admiral Samuel Locklear, the chief of the U.S.
Pacific Command, last October. Catapang was also careful to emphasize
that the list would only be formalized once the Philippine Supreme Court
rules on the constitutionality of EDCA, which is still yet to occur.
And while media reports have stressed that some of these bases face the
South China Sea (which Manila calls the West Philippine Sea), Catapang
himself noted that the Philippines recognizes that this does not solve
its problems in disputed areas and Manila cannot expect Washington to
defend its ally if an armed conflict erupts.
“EDCA will not solve our problem. We understand the treaty, it does
not include the West Philippine Sea. So we want to develop our own
capabilities,” he said.
In that vein, the Philippines is also looking to boost its own
capabilities in this respect in the coming months with the help of
several countries including the United States. On 27 April, Galvez, the
DND spokesman, reportedly told IHS Jane’s that the Philippines is
preparing to submit a request to the U.S. government to procure
additional military equipment – especially those that could boost the
country’s offshore military capabilities in the face of rising Chinese
assertiveness – in line with official meetings between the two sides.
“We will be requesting to acquire equipment that can improve our
military capabilities, particularly in the maritime domain,” Galvez said. “We have a list of priorities but we will not be specific with our requirements until we know what is available from the U.S.”
As IHS Jane’s notes, stated requirements by the Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP) include additional transport aircraft,
long-range patrol aircraft, close-air support aircraft, anti-submarine
warfare helicopters, light frigates, amphibious assault vehicles, and
communications and surveillance systems.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

By Ted RallApril 25, 2015
"Information Clearing House" - Still think the United
States is governed by decent people? That the system isn't totally corrupt
and obscenely unfair?

Two stories that broke
April 23 ought to wake you up.

Story 1: President Obama admitted that one of his
Predator drones killed two aid workers, an American and an Italian, who
were being held hostage by al-Qaida in Pakistan. As The Guardian reports,
"The lack of specificity [about the targets] suggests that despite a
much-publicized 2013 policy change by Barack Obama restricting drone killings
by, among other things, requiring 'near certainty that the terrorist target
is present,' the U.S. continues to launch lethal operations without the
necessity of knowing who specifically it seeks to kill, a practice that has
come to be known as a 'signature strike.'"

"Lack of
specificity" is putting it mildly. According to a report by the group
Reprieve, the U.S. targeted 41 "terrorists" — actually, enemies
of the corrupt Yemeni and Pakistani regimes — with drones during 2014.
Thanks to "lack of specificity," a total of 1,150 people were
killed. Which doesn't even include the 41 targets, many of whom got away
clean.

Obama's hammy pretend grief
was Shatner-worthy. Biting his lip in that sorry/not sorry Bill Clinton
way, the president summed up mock sadness for an event that happened back
in January. Come on, dude. You seriously expect us to believe you've been
all weepy for the last three months — excluding all those speeches and
other public appearances in which you were laughing and cracking jokes?

And the same exact day when
he pretend-sadded, he also yukked it up with the Super Bowl champion New
England Patriots. "That whole story got blown a little out of
proportion," he jibed. (re: "deflate-gate.") While sad. But
laughing.

So confusing.

I swear, the right-wing
racists are right to hate him. But they hate him for totally the wrong
reasons.

Anyway, what took so long
for the White House to admit they killed one of our best citizens? "It
took weeks to correlate [the hostages'] reported deaths with the drone
strikes," The New York Times quoted White House officials. But in his
prepared remarks, Obama said "capturing these terrorists was not
possible" — thus the drone strike.

How stupid does the
administration think we are?

The fact that it is
possible to find out who dies in a drone fact (albeit after the fact)
indicates that there is reliable intelligence coming out of the targeted
areas, presumably provided by local police and military sources. If there
are cops and troops there who are friendly enough to give us information,
then it obviously is possible to ask them to capture the targeted
individuals.

Bottom line: The U.S.
government is blowing up people with drones willy-nilly, without the
slightest clue who they're blowing up. Which, as political assassinations,
are illegal. And which they specifically said was what they were no longer
doing. Then they have the nerve to pretend to be sad about the completely
avoidable consequences of their actions. They're disgusting and gross and
ought to be locked in prison forever.

Story 2: David Petraeus,
former hotshot media-darling general of the Bush and early Obama years,
received a slap on the wrist — probation plus a $100,000 fine — for
improperly passing on classified military documents to unauthorized people
and lying about it to federal agents when they questioned him about it.

Here we go again: more
proof that, in the American justice system some people fly first-class
while the rest of us go coach.

In this backwards world,
people like Petraeus, who ought to be held to the highest standard because
they were entrusted with immense power and responsibility, walk free while
low-ranking schlubs who committed the same crime get treated like Al
Capone. Private Chelsea Manning, who released war logs documenting U.S. war
crimes in Iraq to WikiLeaks, rots in prison for 35 years. Edward Snowden,
the 31-year-old systems administrator for a private NSA outsourcing firm
who revealed that the U.S. government is reading all our emails and
listening to all our phone calls,faceslifeinprison.

Two years probation.
Meanwhile, teachers who helped their students cheat on standardized tests
got seven years in prison. To Petraeus, who went to work for a hedge fund,
$100,000 is a nice tip for the caddy.

Adding insanity to insult
is the fact that Petraeus' motive for endangering national security was
venal: he gave the documents to his girlfriend, who wrote his authorized
biography. Manning and Snowden, heroes who in a sane society would receive
ticker-tape parades and about atrocities committed in their name, and about
wholesale violations of their basicpresidential medals of freedom, weren't after glory. They wanted to
inform the American people freedoms, including the right to privacy.

Before he was caught and
while he was sharing classified info with his gf, Petraeus had the gall to
hypocritically pontificate about a CIA officer who disclosed sensitive
information. Unlike Petraeus, the CIA guy got coach-class justice: 30
months in prison.

"Oaths do
matter," Petraeus pompously bloviated in 2012, "and there are
indeed consequences for those who believe they are above the laws that
protect our fellow officers and enable American intelligence agencies to
operate with the requisite degree of secrecy."

If you're a first-classer,
the consequences are very small.

Ted Rall, syndicated writer
and the cartoonist for The Los Angeles Times, is the author of the new
critically-acclaimed book "After We Kill You, We Will Welcome You Back
As Honored Guests: Unembedded in Afghanistan." Subscribe to Ted Rall
at Beacon.

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com